Letter to the L.A. Times and Borzou Daragahi

On July 26, L.A. Times correspondent Borzou Daragahi printed an article on the commemoration of the death's of the Shah of Iran and Anwar Sadat in Egypt. Here's the link that article:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-shah26jul26,1,1882469.story?ctrack=2&cset=true


Here's the letter I sent to the Times:

Thank you for Borzou Daragahi's article on the anniversary of the Shah's death - Although I must admit it was somewhat petty - taking shots at Iranians because of their clothes and perfume. Did he expect them to wear fanny packs and sweat pants?

I don't doubt there may have been fluff surrounding some of those mourners - But in truth, I believe there is often a mob mentality regarding a lot of people, and "monarchists" are no different thanintellectuals, communists, revolutionaries and evidently, journalists.

As an Iranian-American Angeleno, I think Mr. Daragahi could have created a piece that really looked at the significance of the Shah in today's global context and in relation to the hundred thousand of Iranians and Iranian-Americans who live in Los Angeles today.What he failed to do wasacknowledge his audience - scores of respectable, intelligent and proud Iranian L.A Times readers, many of whom supported the Shah and most of whom revile the consequences of the Islamic revolution - and who at the very least, can view that man's great accomplishments and failings objectively - something that is usually expected of journalists like himself.

But like I said, some Iranians like the fluff, and it seems that Mr. Daragahi is no exception.

Respectfully,

The American Monarchists - Say It Ain't So

Gossip columns including my favorite daily rag,"The Daily Dish" in the San Francisco Chronicle, regularly publish the shocking tales of egotistical celebrities and their outlandish requests.

What was on the menu this past week? Sting goes to a *posh* Miami eatery with his own personal chef in tow. The Dish reports that his assistant made these special arrangements beforehand (as a former personal assistant, any good celebrity does this). Earlier in the week, Prince requests old-fashioned popcorn as part of his deal to headline a concert. Before that, Babs demands hotel employees to avert their eyes when speaking to her. Did they really need to be told this?

Don't people already know that if you look deep into the eyes of a celebrity, you will be fired up, zapped away, time-warped and incinerated by their steely gaze into an alternate universe full of designer couture, E! True Hollywood Story reruns and David Beckham posters? Or maybe, they just don't want you to know they lack a soul - the kind us normal folk have. The truth, such a request is not all that preposterous. In the world of celebrity, actors are the royals and everyone else is, well, those peons who do their bidding.

It's kind of ironic that my favorite celebrity rag, and as far as I know, the only one that associates itself with a big city newspaper like the San Francisco Chronicle, is, well, a product of the city by the bay. The Chronicle is liberal....very liberal. They are environmental, intellectual, and I'm sure quite anti-monarchical.

And yet, celebrities are far less worthy than your decent run of the mill monarch. Celebrities, for example, make more money and have less good works to show for it. Unless third-world baby collecting à la Angelina counts as good works. They chose to be a celebrity - in fact, that was their goal. I wonder how many child monarchs over the course of history felt conflicted, depressed or under-prepared for their role. Ask any celebrity (or just plain any actor) and they feel they deserve all the great things they get. They aren’t conflicted. Shoot, they are the crème de la crème! Gods gift to everyone!

This also applies to lukewarm celebrities, even cold celebrities. Does anyone watch Kathy Griffin's "My Life on the D-List?" Sure she's funny and the fact that her personal assistant has a personal assistant is a hoot (actually, I could have used a personal assistant when I was a P.A.), but even she herself mentions she is a D-list celebrity – and do you see how she lives? I wish I was a D-List celebrity to live in a bangin’ Hollywood Hills home like that.

So no matter what level of celebrity-dom someone belongs to, they all feel entitled. And, in a way, that’s part of the attitude required to be successful in the entertainment business. But it’s not all. ‘Cause most of the Midwestern-transplants, college dropouts and the assortment of actors and singers in the L.A. area feel entitled but they don’t deserve a damn.

The other part of the equation is hard work and perseverance. You are not going to get by only with a pretty face and a nice rack. You have to work hard and be diligent. You have to be shrewd and conniving. You can’t just be in the right room – you have to know how to work it.

So maybe that’s why people put up with so much from famous actors and actresses. They know how to get what they want. And as far as all the peons of normal people, or celebrity wannabes, who follow their every whim and fancy and latest purchase by reading those gossip columns (nestled inside those uber-leftist newspapers) – welcome to American Royalty. Bush may be your president. But face it – Paris Hilton is your Queen.

Becoming Jane Austen

As a new member of Film Independent, the organizations that includes filmmakers and film lovers and is comprised of the voting body of the Spirit Awards, I'm invited to preview screenings throughout the year (amongst other perks). I attended my first screening (sponsored by the Sundance Channel and InStyle) this past Monday.

They screened the upcoming Miramax pic "Becoming Jane". It is a sweeping narrative that chronicles the supposed love affair between Jane Austen and a young Irish lawyer named Tom Lefroy. It’s set to come out next month. It is documented that these two knew each other and engaged in a mild flirtation, but the story here is a work of fiction to entice Jane Austen fans and admirers alike.

---Just a word of ‘caution’ – this blog posting gets deep in “Pride and Prejudice” territory. So, read on if you know your stuff, otherwise you may be confused by the mention of several characters from the book. (by the way, why haven’t you read it?!) ----

Obviously, I was excited to see the film. And I took my aunt – the one-time owner of the 1984 BBC version of "Pride and Prejudice", which I co-opted, made my own, and saw about 20 times. It was especially enjoyable during long cleaning and packing episodes.

A film about Jane Austen is a great idea. There's definitely an interested market out there. And the star of the film is Anne Hathaway, one of the few young actresses today who isn't always in the tabloids.

The film has lots of good points. The supporting actors are excellent. James Cromwell and Julie Walters, who portray Austen’s father and mother respectively, are a joy to watch. Maggie Smith, who's character, I gather, is meant to provide the inspiration for Austen's "Lady Catherine", is top-notch. I wish all these actors had bigger roles. In fact, most of the supporting actors are good. Everyone except maybe Anne Hathaway.

Anne Hathaway's Austen isn't sympathetic. She’s more strong-willed and immature than a witty trailblazer. By this depiction, I cannot see how Jane Austen could have produced Elizabeth Bennett, one of my favorite literary heroines. If Elizabeth is witty, than the film’s Jane is precocious and obnoxious. One scene in particular with James Cromwell is particularly painful to watch - it made me wonder whether Anne is only suitable for the Disney, or chicklit-turned-maintream movie roles she is famous for. Her best performances were at the end of at least 3 scenes where she delivers a great line and promptly storms out. In fact, she is best at storming out.

As far as story goes, I initially found it hard to believe why Jane Austen would fall in love with a man like Tom LeFroy. In the movie, he has a bad reputation, is always tardy, frequents prostitutes and engages in basement boxing matches. He is depicted as careless and thoughtless. Plainly, he is the bad boy. Short, Irish, and bad. He is even blatantly rude towards Jane and tells her brother she’s too full of herself (We’re guessing this is created to mimic the similar scenario between Darcy and Lizzy) This causes Jane to fly into hysterics and question herself as a writer. Did Jane Austen really lack so muck confidence in her talent?

But like all bad boys, LeFroy has something none of the other men in Hampshire have – Charisma. It becomes clear that Jane falls in love with him for this reason – All the other men are effeminate, quiet and uninteresting. This Irish braggart is the only one who sparks any desire in her.

The film attempts to correlate their relationship with that of Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth in “Pride and Prejudice”. And in parts, I can see it to be true. But LeFroy is much more of a Mr. Wickham than a Mr. Darcy. Who knows, maybe he was the inspiration for both characters. Although I think that the Darcy comparison is really pushing it.

I would have been more interested in a story that closely examined Austen's evolution as a writer more so than her evolution as a lover. I just don’t feel for these two as a couple. It doesn’t ring true. Also, the director’s choice of shortchanging scenes involving Austen’s writing are really irritating. There are instances where a grand musical score overwhelms Hathaway’s readings of Austen’s work. There are also too many montages. How many dissolves can one person take?

Although the film as a whole wasn't moving for me, the end provided some satisfaction. It actually left me, well, depressed. Jane's only hope for love is Tom LeFroy. When she turns him down (not because she wanted to, but, well you'll see, she actually wanted to marry him), she closes the door to anyone else. A woman's reputation was much more fragile back in those days and her options were few. I wonder, did Jane think someone better would come along?

At the end of the film, Jane Austen is "Jane Austen", a popular and well-respected author. But she seems so lonely and depressed that I wonder if it was all worth it. It made me think - In today's world, are a woman's options really that much more abundant than women in the past? Aren’t a lot of us just waiting for someone better to come along when this may be as good as it gets?

Despite these resonating qualities, I’m not sure if I would recommend the film on the whole. It just goes to show that no fictionalized movie about Jane Austen will ever be as witty, smart, well-crafted and memorable as the stories she herself created.

Update

If you never got a chance to read my article in the Daily News, "Valley's Iranians Celebrate Norooz", I have updated the link so it directs you to a crystal clear JPEG of the story. Please click on the appropriate link to your right underneaththe heading "Recently Published Articles".

Guess Who's Podcasting?

I have always wanted to do it, and in fact did do it, when I was about nine years old and made my own radio show using a bulky recorder and showcasing my favorite songs and hamming it up DJ style. Now I am entering the podcasting world with my own weekly contribution - The Avenue Podcast.

I will explore the various avenues of my life as a writer and Angeleno. It will include cultural happenings, interesting items in the news, podcast recommendations and a slew of infotainment from yours truly.

Please bear in mind this is my first foray into the digital aural connection, so future episodes will only sound better!

My podcast website is www.avenuepodcast.com

My debut episode is about 10 minutes long. It's entitled "Debut! Chewed Circus Peanuts, Valley Theater and Googling".

When you click on the listen insignia, it will take you to a Quicktime of my episode. If you don't have a current version of
Quicktime, you will be directed to download it. Otherwise, click on RSS button on the main web page, on the right hand side. This will take you to the RSS page and the available MP3 version which should be compatible.

Thanks for listening.

Theater Review in this Week's Sun

If you are in the L.A. area, grab a copy of the Encino, Sherman Oaks, or Studio City Sun for my theater review of actress Sally Randa's one-woman show "Growing Up...And Liking It" at the Whitefire Theatre. The PDF should be available soon and I will post it under "Recent Published Articles".